You WILL hear these words under a Democratic presidency:

"We must move on as a nation."

There will be no impeachment. There will be no war crimes tribunals. There will probably be pardons to just close the book on all the issues.

I guarantee this. There will be no accountability. Obama will not pursue it. He'll call it divisive. Hilary won't touch it either.

The reason Nancy isn't pursuing this stuff is because she and Harry Reid, as well as the Democratic members of both Congressional intelligence committees, were briefed on what the CIA was doing, and they didn't protest.

If Bush hangs, so do they.

The only reason I can look past my utter disgust to be bothered to vote in November is that I know McCain will just be four more years of Bush.

We might not have accountability for Bush's actions under a Democrat, but at least it will be over.

My biggest fear is Bush dropping some bombs in Iran and leaving that for the next president. If he does that, I can tell you exactly who we must hold accountable for abdication of DUTY: Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

Posted at May 14, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Yoo: Impeach Bush? Why Not?

Hagel (R-NE)

Nice editorial work.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:53 PM in response to Senators Call for Investigation of Alleged Drugging of Detainees

As for the conspiracy theory... Iran is EXACTLY why Speaker Pelosi is being criminally negligent by not trying to impeach. Remember this when we bomb Iran: Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:33 PM in response to Yoo, Feith, Ashcroft Agree to Testify

"I do not recall."

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:31 PM in response to Yoo, Feith, Ashcroft Agree to Testify

A) The previous attempt to explicitly ban the CIA from using waterboarding failed because it was part of a larger bill and the Republicans were able to claim that they were anti-torture but unfortunately they didn't agree with the rest of the bill.

Yet again, we're trying to stick this onto another bill. History will repeat itself. Fools.

Make a stand alone bill. Make the Republicans vote against THAT.

2) Waterboarding is ALREADY illegal. This is a huge waste of time. If a government agency breaks any other law, what is the usual process?

Oh yeah, you go to the DoJ. But oh yeah, the DoJ issued an advance pardon to the CIA, so they can't investigate.

And Conyers is just now threatening to subpoena the people who issued the advance pardon.

And nobody in Congress is talking about impeachment. Not of Bush. Not of Cheney. Not of Condi. Not of Mukasey.

So the torture will just continue. And the torturers will never be held accountable.

We'll just wank, wank, WANK our way to the November election and watch as the combined forces of the Media and Ralph Nader and Democratic In-Fighting hand the election over to John McCain.

Get used to it.

Maybe if enough of you go vote then the Democrats can gain enough seats in the House and Senate to allow for meaningful oversight.

Maybe then we'll stop torturing people and not get into a war with Iran.

Whatever. Doesn't matter. Nobody is talking about what we'll do as a country if there's another 9/11. If they committed war crimes against foreign Muslims after the first 9/11, what do you think they'll do after the second one?

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:54 PM in response to Dems to Push Again to Limit Interrogation Techniques

Bush and Mukasey shouldn't be allowed to say that if we prosecute telecoms they'll stop helping the government. The media and the democrats should be calling them out on this outright lie.

As you said, telecoms ARE REQUIRED AND HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO HONOR any subpoenas or warrants they are served.

AND, FISA further requires them to assist the government in any wiretapping before a warrant is granted (since the original FISA bill allowed for 72 hours of tapping before getting a warrant.)

Why doesn't anybody in the media call the Administration out on this lie?

Posted at March 22, 2008 1:53 PM in response to Mukasey: I'm Open to Compromise... As Long As The Telecoms Get Retroactive Immunity

I've said it before, and I will say it again: Grant telecom immunity AFTER Mukasey appoints a special prosecutor to investigate what was authorized, by whom, and whether it was legal.

There's your compromise.

Fully independent special prosecutor. Bring down whoever authorized it.

Posted at March 22, 2008 1:50 PM in response to Mukasey: I'm Open to Compromise... As Long As The Telecoms Get Retroactive Immunity

Without an impeachment, the ground is going to be swept out from under the Democrats if there's another terrorist attack. It'll be "their fault" because they stopped spying and they stopped torturing. If you impeach the President for torturing, and there's another terrorist attack -- we have the impeachment as proof positive that torture just isn't an option for defense.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:12 AM in response to House Judiciary Dems: Why We Reject Retroactive Immunity

I agree that it seems like forcing a vote on impeachment would be better rather than voting and losing on surveillance and torture bills -- where there's usually a convenient out left in the bill for Republicans to escape through without actually endorsing torture or warrant-less spying.

Draw up the articles of impeachment on the authorization of illegal torture alone. Leave it so narrow that the Republicans have to choose to cast a vote that says, yes, the President can authorize torture.

Sure seems like a win for Democrats.

Of course, in the hearings we'll find out how many of the Democrats in the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate gave approval themselves for torture and spying. That might be what's holding it up.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:08 AM in response to House Judiciary Dems: Why We Reject Retroactive Immunity

It is clearly illegal torture, even John McCain says so. And the FBI doesn't want it. And the military doesn't want it.

We're wasting our time on redundant legislation when we could just as well be wasting our time impeaching.

The Republicans have a convenient out on this bill where they can claim they're against torture while still upholding Bush's veto.

Let the charges for the articles of impeachment state that the President authorized illegal torture, and let the Republicans vote against impeaching the President.

Hayden testified to congress that we tortured, and Bush is defending it.

But oh wait that's right... all of the Democrats on the House and Senate judiciary committees knew that the CIA was torturing.

Posted at March 12, 2008 2:51 PM in response to House Bid to Override Bush Anti-Torture Veto Fails